A person produces about 1.5 kg of CO2 per day, one litre of gasoline about 2.6 kg. In both cases the O2 comes from the air, but the C in the gasoline comes from a fossil that's been sitting underground millions of years and the persons' C comes from food ultimately from plants that captured it from the air presumably not too long ago so that's somehow a closed cycle unlike the gasoline's. Or so it seems, if I'm not mistaken.

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

it would mean we should really cut down on CO2 releases and this would likely mean cutting down on our standard of living, though not directly as much as the reduction in emissions. The reductions currently proposed are no way enough. It is just a first step - a sustainable level would be more like < 1% of current levels.

It is possible, to increase the standard of living and reduce emissions. We can increase the quality of rails for long term travel, make car sharing or cheap renting avaliable, and crazy citys in the benelux can live on bicycles.

Don't take this personal but this kind of crap is exactly what makes the greenies' ideas so unrealistic. In the NL they have been trying to price people out of the cars but it has had zero effect. The number of cars has been growing steadily.

I have a very strict differentiation between fanatics greens and greens. Fanatics will chain themselves to trees and "we should all ride bicycles". That is stupid. If there is a green revolution, it will be technology driven and it will improve things, not restrict me and not make my life less comfortable or more expensive.I believe in green revolution. Your country did a lot for that. As I recall 10+% of new car sales are plug in or electric. Steadily growing, and you have plans to phase out petrol engine. That is exactly, what they should do everywhere.There are plans to increase the usage of green energy in a clever way. There is a manager working on just this, sitting next to me. Working on variable pricing of electricity, social studies, etc. Trial runs are expected to start. Very simple concepts, like charging your car when the sun is shining. It requires infrastructure, data processing, smart meters, controllable chargers, websites, etc. The end result is higher solar production, and less fossil usage. It is simple. If you tell someone, that it is cheaper to use green energy, and buy the technology to reduce waste, pollution, they are going to do that. And maybe we can prevent half of Holland going underwater.

The post above is the perfect example of science illiteracy and pseudoscience run amok in the internet age It's astounding that even some posters on a technical forum can't make the distinction.

What's next on EEVblog - people posting "creation science" videos?

Yep. The science/mechanisms behind greenhouse gases couldn't be clearer or easier to understand but these people refuse to believe because a single, relatively unimportant number might be 93% instead of 97%, or because nobody can tell them exactly how much the earth's temperature will rise this decade (to 0.00001 degrees C, please).

These are the exact same people who totally believed that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans - because they read somewhere it on the Internet!

It's all around. Science will still happen whether you believe in it or not.

I believe in green revolution. Your country did a lot for that. As I recall 10+% of new car sales are plug in or electric. Steadily growing, and you have plans to phase out petrol engine. That is exactly, what they should do everywhere.There is a manager working on just this, sitting next to me.

Yep. Electric cars are all-around better than gasoline/petrol cars.

There's one remaining problem at the moment which is very long range. Most daily car use isn't a problem but sometimes people want to drive 1000 miles.

My solution for that to rent a battery "trailer" that attaches to the back of the car. You drive into a battery station on the highway, hook one up, drive, drop it off when you arrive and pay for the electricity used. Change as many times as needed to complete your journey.

The overall effort and extra delays needed for a long journey would about the same as filling up with gasoline/petrol1. As a driver you're driving you're not even going to see it behind your car.

All we need is some nice designs2 and a standard connector built into all new cars. If it's designed right it can be all automated so you don't even have to get out of your car to attach/remove them.

How will this be a loss in "standard of living", unless you're an oil-baron?

1 If you can charge your car at home you're going to save an awful lot of trips to gas stations anyway.2 Engineered to not restrict top speeds, obviously.

See attachment for human population vs CO2 since 1850'ish. Some data is estimates but all from official sources. Data intervals with no data are interpolated. All sources listed in PNG text

You can create all kinds of graphs which hint in some direction but that doesn't prove there is an actual relation. Statistics is much harder (and often severely underestimated) than plotting data into a graph and look at it. Many scientists don't have a good grasp of statistics!

Logged

There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.

it would mean we should really cut down on CO2 releases and this would likely mean cutting down on our standard of living, though not directly as much as the reduction in emissions. The reductions currently proposed are no way enough. It is just a first step - a sustainable level would be more like < 1% of current levels.

It is possible, to increase the standard of living and reduce emissions. We can increase the quality of rails for long term travel, make car sharing or cheap renting avaliable, and crazy citys in the benelux can live on bicycles.

Don't take this personal but this kind of crap is exactly what makes the greenies' ideas so unrealistic. In the NL they have been trying to price people out of the cars but it has had zero effect. The number of cars has been growing steadily.

I have a very strict differentiation between fanatics greens and greens. Fanatics will chain themselves to trees and "we should all ride bicycles". That is stupid. If there is a green revolution, it will be technology driven and it will improve things, not restrict me and not make my life less comfortable or more expensive.I believe in green revolution. Your country did a lot for that. As I recall 10+% of new car sales are plug in or electric. Steadily growing, and you have plans to phase out petrol engine. That is exactly, what they should do everywhere.

I don't know anything about phasing out petrol engines. Diesel engines maybe. The NL is about the only country where you can't get E10 fuel (10% ethanol). Also the plugin hybrids where popular due to tax incentives which have already been stopped and hence the sale of plugin hybrids has dropped to insignificant levels. Nobody was using the batteries on their plugin hybrid cars. You do see a lot of Teslas in the NL though.

BTW rising sea levels won't have any effect on the NL because keeping the water out means upgrading existing infrastructure which is a continuous process already.

« Last Edit: May 23, 2017, 08:10:07 pm by nctnico »

Logged

There are small lies, big lies and then there is what is on the screen of your oscilloscope.

You can create all kinds of graphs which hint in some direction but that doesn't prove there is an actual relation. Many scientists don't have a good grasp of statistics!

Sure, but the "relation" is a simple scientific phenomenon predicted over 100 years ago, ie. greenhouse gases vs. earth temperature. They're overlaying a graph of temperature and a graph of greenhouse gases and seeing if they match or not. There's not much room for massaging numbers when it's two simple sets of data against time.

Believe it or not, the climate scientists are also trying to disprove their own theories[/url] by looking for other things that match. This is actual science, this is how it's done - not just by reading stuff on the Internet. Have they found anything? Not so far.

nb. Most of the deniers theories have been tested too and found lacking, eg. solar activity.

If the mechanism being proposed (ie. greenhouse gases) was long and complicated then the deniers might have a point. It isn't though. It's very simple.

If the mechanism being proposed (ie. greenhouse gases) was long and complicated then the deniers might have a point. It isn't though. It's very simple.

Things like these below, then... why?

Quote

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."